Research

[Research] Trying to represent my literature review about space and collaboration

in

Lately, I tried to organize better all the stuff I read about the affordances of space (I think it's better to use this 'affordance' notion than always repeating "the socio-cognitive functions of space). I came with this really simple graphic: The idea is very simple; when dealing with the concept of space in collective situations, one should consider three dimensions as presented in the figure: persons, space/place and artifacts, and a corollary feature of place which is activity. From the relation between each of those components, affordances of space emerges among the group. This is the decompositional framework I use for my report about spatial affordances: Socio-cognitive functions of space in collaborative settings : a literature review about Space, Cognition and Collaboration which is now a technical report from our faculty here at EPFL (well it's just my previous report I wrote last year, but it's now more formal, with a *"ç%"*% number).

[Research] Analysis of players interaction in Star Wars Galaxies

in

The paper The Social Side of Gaming: A Study of Interaction Patterns in a Massively Multiplayer Online Game (.pdf) by Nicolas Ducheneaut and Robert Moore offers an interesting methodology to analyze multi-players interactions in the video game Star Wars Galaxies.

To understand the nature of player-to-player interactions in SWG, we proceeded as follows. As a preliminary step, we created characters and conducted a “virtual ethnography” of in-game activities. (...) we built a series of tools to process the logs. We wrote a small parser (implemented in Perl) to format each line of the logs and extract the most useful data. In particular, our parser relied on a dictionary we also built to reliably identify the gestures used by the players, and their directionality. After parsing, the data was stored into a mySQL database for further analysis. The database had a simple structure: it segmented each event (that is, each line of the logs) into its component parts: who is interacting with whom, in what way (gesture or chat), where (starport or cantina), at what date and time, and what the content of the interaction was (text chat or “social” command). We finally built another series of scripts to extract interesting patterns of information from the data. (...) Figure 4 illustrates different “interaction profiles”: each player is represented by a dot on a two-axis grid; the X-axis represents the number of gestures received, while the Y-axis represents the number of gestures sent. The size of each dot is proportional to the number of utterances each player made.

Starting with the lower left quadrant of the graph, it is easy to see that an overwhelming majority of players are not very interactive: they say very little, and do not gesture more. (...) The population of the upper-left quadrant of the graph illustrates a variation on the above behavior. Players gesturing and talking a lot, but not receiving any gestures in return, are usually indicative of another type of “AFK macroing”. (...) As we move to the right of the graph, especially the upper-right, we start to find more interactive players. These are “live entertainers:” they gesture to others a lot, receive a lot of gestures in return, and talk significantly more than average without being overwhelming.

I am considering such kind of graphical representation as well for catchbob.

[Space and Place] Third Places in games

in

Nicolas Ducheneaut will present a paper about "Designing for sociability in massively multiplayer games: an examination of the “third places” of SWG " at "the other players" conference in Copenhagen. It seems quite interesting:

hile massively multiplayer games are often touted as successful social environments, it is only recently that game designers have started to develop models and techniques for encouraging interactions between players. One of the most recent examples of “sociability by design” in MMORPGs is Star Wars Galaxies (SWG). In particular, SWG is organized so that players are steered towards certain game locations where sociability is expected to take place. In this paper we critically examine player-to-player interactions in one of these locations: the cantinas. Based on several months of ethnographic observations and computerized data collection, we use Oldenburg’s notion of “third places” to evaluate whether or not these cantinas fit existing definitions of sociable environments. This allows us to formulate several design recommendations for the design of future MMOs.

The way he works he close to our project, except that our focus is more directed toward socio-cognitive processes:

Based on a combination of ethnography, interviewing, and automated data collection, we hope to uncover the social mechanics of MMOGs and eventually impact their design.

[Research] Ubiquitous Computing Evaluation

in

Stumbled across this workshop about Evaluation Methodologies for Ubiquitous Computing

Interactive systems, and in particular, ubiquitous computing pose more complex evaluation methodologies than non-interactive text retrieval. However, there are several possibilities. One possibility is to start by conducting evaluations on the various aspects that make up subsystems of ubiquitous computing: perceptual user interfaces, dynamic service discovery, wireless networking services, distributed data systems and input and output using distributed user interfaces. Issues here would be to establish metrics and evaluation methodologies for individual components and to determine what, if anything, successful evaluations imply about the entire system.

Another possibility would be to evaluate individual systems, end -to-end, as they are built using traditional usability evaluation methodologies. This would give us information about individual systems and would perhaps allow researchers more flexibility in choosing particular domains. Would this necessitate changes in usability evaluation methodologies? Typical usability metrics are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. Are these valid metrics for technology that is still under development? Is it feasible to compare systems across domains of use?

Another issue for evaluation of ubiquitous computing systems is that we would like to employ rapid evaluation methods whose results will be available in time to influence the final design. Creation of such methods and their validation would represent an important contribution to the HCI community.

[Research] Prototyping location based services

in

Via ,Fab, Topiary is a a tool for prototyping location-enhanced applications. It allows you to carry out wizard-of-oz experiments, with a really good touch.

Topiary lets designers create a map that models the location of people, places, and things; use this active map to demonstrate scenarios depicting location contexts; use these scenarios in creating storyboards that describe interaction sequences; and then run these storyboards on mobile devices like PDAs, with a wizard updating the location of people and things on a separate device.

Topiary allows designers to quickly design, prototype, and test a location-enhanced application without requiring them to implement the application or deploy a supporting infrastructure, enabling them to get early feedback about their design from real end users.

[Research] Applying Social Network Analysis to small groups?

in

I often think that social network analysis does not really suit to my research needs (studying the effects of technology on small groups). But it seems that it could fit. In Social Network Analysis - The Science of Measuring, Visualizing and Simulating Social Relationships, the authors took an example on the soccer field:

The Rapid Vienna network consists of the 11 players on the field, and we observed who passed the ball to whom during the course of a match. The resulting graph consists of a number of players (nodes) and a number of passes (arrows). To the left is the graph that depicts Rapid’s passing game during the last 15 minutes of a soccer match between Rapid Vienna and Sturm Graz on December 7, 2003. As soon as we add additional information such as the players’ names and their positions (red = attack, green = midfield, yellow = defense), we have produced a network. Networks are graphs with additional information about nodes and/or arrows. Once the empirically calculated data have been transformed into a relational graph, vari-ous questions can be answered. Which player initiated the most passes (Jazic)? Who was on the receiving end of the most passes (Jazic)? Who controlled Rapid’s play (Jazic, Hoffman)? Which players were involved in the most combination pass plays (Jazic, Hofmann, Feldhofer, Martinez, Carics)? Who played together with whom and who didn’t (not a single pass from Ivanschitz to Wagner!)? Which combinations of players made up the back-bone of the team (e.g. the Feldhofer-Carics-Pashazadeh triad)? Which players had a simi-lar role (Ivanschitz / Martinez)? Where are the weak points of Rapid’s play (Kulovits)? Which players do I have to “shut down” to achieve maximum disruption of the flow of Rapid’s play (Jazic, Hofmann, Feldhofer)? To answer questions like these, social network analy-sis has developed a comprehensive set of measure-ment, visualization and simulation techniques.

The picture shows rapid’s passing game during the last 15 minutes of a soccer match between Rapid Vienna and Sturm Graz on December 7, 2003 (data by Harald Katzmair and Helmuth Neundlinger). Left: graph, Right: network: It's a bit what I had in mind with the catchbob analysis: analysing the number of interactions between the three persons and representing it with this kind of network:

[Research] Challenges to studying ubiquitous computing

in

Interesting part of Designing through exploration: using observational methods in ubiquitous technology research (by Brown, B. and A. Weilenmann) about the challenges to study ubiquitous computing uses.

In this paper, the authors explain the added value of evaluating ubiquitous computing products. They advocated for 'exploring' rather than 'evaluating'.They exemplify this claim with 3 systems.

I am strongly interested in their argumentation about the challenges to study Ubicomp:

  • ubicomp is experimental then work on prototype: fragile, unreliable, sometimes physically larger than final product
  • the real world (where the experiment is conducted) is very different from the lab settings
  • ubicomp designed to be embedded into the environment often for long periods of time: difficult to study over time (longitudinal studies) -> difficult to create usage scenario, and it will be difficult to study them in lab context
  • ubicomp often involved in chains of interaction between different device and individuals so it's difficult to take this into account in the usage scenario.
  • ubicomp used in lots of different environments, different from classical one, and often multi.context, unpredictable use of mobile stuff.
  • ubicomp use: short and sporadic


Those challenges are hard to solve in a conventional lab study. Besides, experiments outside the lab are difficult as well.

[Research] Observing ubicomp interactions

in

Very informative paper with regard to the analysis we want to conduct on catchbob.Designing through exploration: using observational methods in ubiquitous technology research by Barry Brown, Alexandra Weilenmann

The evaluation and study of ubiquitous computing is an essential part of learning from design success and failure. Yet understanding technologies which are, by their very nature, embedded in the world presents new challenges for evaluation. In particular, there are limitations in how approaches based on experimental lab studies can reveal about complex contexts outside the laboratory. Observational methods offer an alternative approach which allows broader lessons to be drawn from prototypes’ use insitu. Part of this is moving from the ‘evaluation’ the use of systems to ‘exploring’ their use. We discuss three different studies where we have used observational methods to explore the use of ubicomp. In the ‘tourism study’ we studied a setting before the introduction of technology to learn what sorts of ubiquitous technologies would be appropriate for tourists. In the ‘lighthouse co-visiting study’ we conducted a field experiment of a prototype museum co-visiting system. Lastly, in the ‘hummingbird study' we looked at the use of a location based technology by ski instructors as part of nonstaged activities. Each of these studies show how observational methods and experimental ubicomp technologies can be combined. From these example we discuss the different stages of conducting an observational study, and give pointers to how ubicomp designers themselves could use observational methods in their work.

[Locative Media] The added value of pointing: geovector

in

It's good to see enbodiment in computer science. Relying on deictic acts is an interesting way to interact with objects. This is the point of geovector. They havedeveloped "a number of applications that show the potential and actual benefits of pointing in real world situations." Among all the applications (there is of course a "point of buy" app but I am not really fan of it), the "Real Doom" seems pretty cool (even though it reminds me the ARQuake but with less augmented reality spin). The features of this Real Doom are:

  • Using positioning to allow the user to move around and the heading sensor to point their weapon
  • Real Doom turns the real world into a gaming environment. Any location can be turned into a gaming area. Easily create game maps with your friends or go online and download the latest map for your location.
  • With communications via CDMA, GPRS or WiFi Real Doom is multi-playable, with the ability to play against other real world competitors or even play against console or pc opponents!
  • As Doom created the FPS genre, Real Doom is creating the Real Gaming genre. Soon we will see other exciting 3D titles for the Real World.

[Locative Media] Conqwest: urban mobile game

in

Conqwest:

More than a hundred players and phones, 5-meter tall giant inflatable animals designed by an artist in the UK, $5000 prizes, semacodes nodes on billboards, on buses, and on a taxi navigating the streets.

It's an urban mobile treasure hunt, with 5 teams from local high schools racing to be the first to find $5000 in treasure - and win the money to keep it for their school. event team mountain lion moves out

Teams had to first capture one of many zones by carrying a 5 meter high animal totem (cougar, lion, eagle...) for their team into the zone base. Once there, they checked in and out with semacode nodes. If two teams vyed for control of a zone, they battled it out with a bidding war: the winner got the zone and the loser got their money.

The game was played in Minneapolis; Denver, Salt Lake City, Seattle, and Phoenix will follow.

[Research] Paper ideas for CSCL

in

I had a short discussion with Pierre about our short paper for CSCL 2005. Since we don't have so much data to propose, we will rather present some concepts and ideas that ground our projects at the lab. Here is the outline:

  1. Introduction: specifying that we are not interested in addressing learning situationsper se but rather by analyzing cognitive processes that occur during collaboration. Our focus is indeed directed towards dynamic and collaborative problem solving. Our interest specifically lies in space: how space/spatial awareness affords collaboration.
  2. Previous studies: in virtual space, we saw that space affords various collaborative processes (narrowing the conversational context, dividing labor, spatial coordination, mutual modeling, improving performance). We found that in collaborative situations people do pay attention to their peers' location.
  3. Roadmap: a nice and smart figure that summarizes both results, lacks and potential issues to investigates.
  4. Our ongoing studies. Back from virtual to real, we know we deal with mobile computing (in which there is an overlap between virtual information on the device and the activity which occur in a more mobile and dynamic context)
    1. Mauro's project: how people infer meaning which is not in the message thanks to spatial information.
    2. CatchBob: how location awareness information impacts mutual modeling in collaboration

It would be great to be innovative in the way I present the roadmap part with a well-designed figure that could summarize our framework. People shoudl grasp our research quickly. Besides, I have a still a program in legitimating why we switch from virtual environment to mobile computing, in terms of consistency (compared to the previous studies that occured in a MOO and a 3D game).

[Research] CatchBob ToDo List

in

Here is the todo list for CatchBob!:- catchbob tablet pc interface: design of a proper interface with whiteboard (to write comments) and a zone with: logo, buttons (refresh), player name, time spent. - annotation sent in real time + one color per player - replay tool: should show the annotatiosn (every 10 seconds?) so that I can use it to transcript. - annotation fadeout

[Locative Media] Norwgegian Lab about mobile computing

in

re-public is a project that deals with humanistic perspectives on emerging digital communication forms & expressions & their information systems. They have an interesting project about mobile gaming.

What are the dramaturgical and mediational features of commercial mobile games? Do location sensitive, always online, portable gaming terminals change the dramaturgical and mediational features of commercial mobile games? How will such terminals interact with ubiquitous computing in the physical environment to create new forms for hybrid games? How and to what extent are the less pre-scripted qualities of mobile and context-related play realised textually and interpersonally? How can the humanities inform and perform ICTs and vice versa? What can the study of computer games tell us about performance and the obverse? How can performance influence the design of computer games? What kinds of performances emerge in multi-player role-playing games?

[Locative Media] Why geo-annotating location?

in

The blog Future Now dealt with the use of geotagging. I have always been amazed by this topic, especially with regard to how people will use it. There are many projects like Urban Tapestries, GeoNotes, Mauro's projects... The author proposes a kind of typology of geotagging uses (listen mauro!): There are 2 types of messages: "I was here" or "You are here".

People will take the time to compose a message and tag that message to a place because they want you to know that they were there, or because they have information that will be relevant to you later when you're in the same location, or some combination of both.

And then, each of those 2 categories could be divided in:

the "I was here" motivation will be largely emotionally driven. Examples: 'This is the place where he proposed'; 'I needed to mark the spot where occurred'; 'I'm a tourist and really having a great time'; even 'I lost a bet, as part of my payoff I have to mark the spot where..'. Ultimately, these types of annotations are still meant for other people -- what is the sound of an unread geo-annotation? -- but the value for the viewer will largely be to participate in someone else's experience and get a sense of the unrecorded history of a place. (...) The "You are here" motivation for leaving physically-tagged messages would seem to offer more utility for both person tagging and person viewing. Examples: geo-personals ('if you're in this location, you might be my type'); geo-classifieds ('if you're here on this bike trail, you might want to buy the bike I'm selling'); announcements ('if you're here, you might want to come to my event'); community organizing ('we're often here...if you are too, join us next time'); tips/assistance/warnings ('if you're here at night, be extra careful', or 'here's what worked for me...'); lost&found ('if you're here, do you see the bracelet I lost?'); temporary notes ('if you're here, we were here...an hour ago! now we're at the party'); gaming and scavenger hunts (even incorporating features of the location -- imagine GeoEverQuest in Central Park); and filling in gaps left by other annotations ('Did you know that this spot will be the site of Starfleet Headquarters? I bet *that* isn't on the official geo-tour!').

I fully agree with the conclusions of the author: there are 2 crux issues: interface and people's adoption. The system is so related to people's use that it needs a critical mass of users (the system itself does nothing, it's just a kind-of shell that allow a new type of interaction).

peterme argues that the author is wrong. He discusses the notion of doing stuff for yourself or for the others. He takes the example of del.icio.us. Why would you want to annotate space for yourself? For whatever reasons you would use del.icio.us. While del.icio.us thrives as a "social bookmark" site, it depends on the me-ness of the activity -- by and large, I'm saving items to del.icio.us that interest me, that I might want to return to later, and the posting-for-others aspect is largely secondary. It's an added benefit, but not the raison d'etre. (...) In fact, I would argue that if people are annotating space only to serve others, it will never, or only rarely, happen. What do I care what some stranger 8 months from now thinks about what I wrote at the corner of New Montgomery and Market in San Francisco? What on earth could I possibly say that's meaningful to them? What benefit do I derive by acting as a tour guide to a stranger?